No thread about the new WIKILEAKS United States diplomatic cables leak?

[The Mad Monk]

Why does the US keep insisting on embarrassing itself?

The leaks are already out, and now they wish to demonstrate for the world how little they value freedom of speech in the 21st century?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025082-281.html

They're eyeing charging Assange for publishing the leaks, because they don't define him as a journalist. Are they ****ing serious?

Truly sad.

They tried that with Drudge, several times. Good luck with that.

[SpencerH]

Yeah, you need to source this.

I suggest you look into the Baghdad airstrike video controversy called "Collateral Murder" by wikileaks. Wiki has a reasonably neutral viewpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike.

[Wezil]

That link is no good.

[DaShi]

No, it didn't.

[DaShi]

I suggest you look into the Baghdad airstrike video controversy called "Collateral Murder" by wikileaks. Wiki has a reasonably neutral viewpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike.

Editorializing is not the same as falsifying documents. Are you a conservative?

[Wezil]

"Falsify" was the word used.

Still awaiting some evidence of this...

[Asher]

It's interesting he gets his panties in a twist over the editorializing, while Fox News has not only editorialized but repeatedly falsified many of their news reports and he's not complained at all.

[Alpha Protocol]

I'm surprised no one has capped this guy yet.

The OP or Julian Assange?

[DaShi]

It's interesting he gets his panties in a twist over the editorializing, while Fox News has not only editorialized but repeatedly falsified many of their news reports and he's not complained at all.

That's why I asked if he was a conservative. They can't tell the difference between the two.

[Wezil]

Can they admit they were wrong when called out?

[germanos]

Wikileaks have already shown on a number of occasions their willingness to falsify material posted on their website.

'A number of occasions'

Your wiki link does not show falsification. Show me three that do.

[St Jon]

Support Free Speech!

Over 300,000 people have already signed the petition located at:~

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?tweet2_12092010

[SpencerH]

"Falsify" was the word used.

Still awaiting some evidence of this...

I'd call editing a video in order to promote a biased and incorrect viewpoint falsification, wouldnt you?

[DaShi]

They only added commentary. They were clear with what they added and what was the content of the original video. There was no falsification. You need a different example. Since you said there were "a number of occasions" of falsification, you should be able to provide some more evidence.

[SpencerH]

Check your facts they did not "only add commentary", they edited to video to omit the arabs carrying weapons. As for "number of occasions", more than editing in more than one video should count as such I think. For those less semantically focussed, I think any unbiased observer of wikileaks activities such as the handling of the previously mentioned videos including the delightfully provocative title "collateral murder", the release of names and places that jeopardizes lives, the threats to Bank America, and their more recent attcks on the VISA website might conclude that they would not be above omitting cables that were prejudicial to their views and contrarily (and this was my point) might be bright enough to include a few fictional pieces designed to "stir the pot". There's nothing stupid about that.